COMMON ORDER:

The Revision Petition in C.R.P.No. 3155 of 2016, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order dated 20.06.2016, in I.A.No. 365 of 2016 in O.S.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District (in short ‘the court below’) which was filed under order VII, rule 14(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents to prove the case of the plaintiff. The Revision Petition in C.R.P.No. 3168 of 2016, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order dated 20.06.2016, in I.A.No. 364 of 2016 in O.S.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District (in short ‘the court below’) which was filed under order 18, rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to recall the PW-1 for the purpose of marking the documents on the side of the plaintiff.

The Revision Petition in C.R.P.No. 3201 of 2016, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order dated 20.06.2016, in I.A.No. 363 of 2016 in O.S.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District (in short ‘ the court below’) which was filed under Section

151 of C.P.C seeking to reopen suit for the purpose of marking the documents on behalf of plaintiff.

2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions, I find it expedient to decide these matters by a Common Order.

3. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein has filed a suit for recovery of the suit sum basing on the cheque issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent defendant filed written statement along with certain documents. Therefore to prove the facts, the petitioner has obtained some documents, which were misplaced and it was traced. Therefore he filed those documents along with recall of PW-1 and reopen the suit. The respondent filed counter and mainly contended that the petitioner has not explained proper reasons to condone the delay. The suit was coming for arguments and evidence of DW-1 was completed long back. The petitioner has filed at belated stage only to fill up the lacunae and requested to dismiss the applications. The court below dismissed the applications holding that the petitioner did not give any reasonable explanation as to what prevented him to produce the evidence, when he was given opportunity to produce all the evidence on his behalf. Assailing the same, the present revisions came to be filed.

4. Heard Mr. V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the court below failed to consider that the suit was decreed, based on the evidence of PWs-1 and 2, but subsequently, on a petition filed by the respondent, the suit was reopened for examination of the respondent, that the respondent’s /defendant’s evidence was closed on 25.04.2016, but well before the said date the petitioner filed these applications. The court below failed to consider that on account of the evidence of the respondent, the petitioner wanted to file certain important documents, which could not be traced earlier, therefore the applications filed. Further it is contended that it is settled principle of law that adequate opportunity must be given to the parties to adduce evidence to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to put an end to the litigation. But the court below has not considered the valid reasons and simply dismissed the applications, which is not in accordance with law. Therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the court below has rightly dismissed the applications by given proper reasons. Therefore this Court needs no interference in the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the revisions.

7. Perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a deci